Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:39:01 AM
If Teva and MNTA were joining forces to bring a generic Copaxone to market, success would be virtually guaranteed. Under this scenario, why would a third party want to promote branded Copaxone knowing that a substantial portion of the benefit would accrue to a generic competitor?
If the DOJ forced Teva to divest branded Copaxone to consummate the deal there would be no shortage of bidders. Hence the value of the branded. Sorry to beleaguer this worthless thread.
FEATURED Cannabix Technologies Announces First Delivery of Marijuana Breath Test (MBT) to a Major Construction Client • Mar 19, 2026 12:45 PM
ECGI Building in Crypto's Top-Performing Sector as Tokenized Real-World Assets Surge Past $26 Billion • ECGI • Mar 19, 2026 8:30 AM
Advances in Domestic Heavy Rare Earth Minerals Production Essential for North American Defense Stockpiles • ALOY • Mar 18, 2026 9:00 AM
ECGI Advances $10M Mortgage Tokenization Pilot as SEC Interpretation Adds Clarity • ECGI • Mar 18, 2026 8:45 AM
ECGI Advances Mortgage Tokenization Pilot as Institutional Market Rails Continue to Develop • ECGI • Mar 17, 2026 8:30 AM
Record Gold Prices Reshape Economics of New Mine Development • SNWGF • Mar 16, 2026 10:46 AM
